Saturday, November 05, 2011

Democrat Leaves The Plantation, Pays Penalty

There was a time when such ideas weren't considered treasonous, even by Democrats:

Rep. Krusick, the proposal’s author, patiently explained that her purpose was to make the grant program more, not less, inclusive. “Many people, regardless of minority status, are poor,” she said. “And the intent of this amendment was for inclusivity for all.” Belief in colorblind inclusiveness, however, may now result in her expulsion from the Democratic party in Wisconsin, since Rep. Zamarripatold a Madison radio station “that she would support removing Krusick from the Democratic caucus.” And Rep. Leon Young, D-Milwaukee, sent Krusick a letter asking her to stay out of Democratic strategy sessions. “We’ve all got to be one and vote that way,” he said in an interview.

10 comments:

Ringling Bros.
said...

What penalty would be paid by a Republican that is Pro-Choice, sympathetic to gay marriage, realized there is no place for intelligent design in the classroom, and prefers if religion was kept a private matter?

The Republican Party is the only party where such debates are allowed. There *are* Republicans who are pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice, anti-2nd-Amendment, etc. I don't see Democrats who are the other way, they march in lockstep.

I have, Dean, and it's good that there are few Democrats out there with some fiscal sanity remaining. That doesn't address my other points, though, where Republicans are the only ones with an *internal* debate on certain issues.

"In 2006, Democratic Nebraska senator Ben Nelson received the endorsements of groups such as the National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association, respectively a pro-life group and pro-gun group, that both typically endorse Republicans."

And again, Republicans have done more filibustering with 40 senators than the Democrats did with 60.

"In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000." (April 2010)

The facts in evidence show Republicans are the ones marching in lockstep. You're entitled to any opinion you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

Still waiting for those Republican senators with "leftie" endorsements... NARAL, NOW, SEIU, or the like.

Wait, did you want to use Lieberman as a living example of the now-extinct "moderate Republican"? Sorry, he's not officially a Republican, so you can't technically count him in your "big tent" Republican circus. He is a clown, though, so a case *could* be made.

Dean, you employ an irritating rhetorical tactic of changing my words into whatever straw man *you* wish to beat, beating that straw man, and then daring me to respond.

I'll play that game this time only, and no more. Let's try to, as we teachers say, "stay on task". That doesn't need you need to agree--Lord knows not everyone here does--but let's try to discuss what the posts are about.

1. Your comment about filibusters actually shows how reasonable Republicans are when they're in charge and how fever-swamp-insane Democrats are when they're in charge. The Republicans didn't propose prayer in schools, banning abortions, pushing grandma over the cliff, or any of the other bugaboos you on the left fret over so much. They were pragmatic, and in many cases even proposed expanded government things that you lefties like (prescription drug benefits, for example). Heck, look who sponsored, wrote, and voted for NCLB! Democrats, on the other hand, rammed through entirely ideological bills (Obamacare, porkulus) which deserved to be challenged. None of these statements, though, addresses or challenges the fact that Republicans are more ideologically diverse than Democrats.

OK, so I responded to that unrelated comment of yours. It's done now.

2. Joe Lieberman is not a Republican. He *was* a Democrat until he was forced out of the party by rabid lefties (Kos, for example, who appeared in an ad for Lieberman's opponent). I really don't understand whatever point you were trying to make with that, but now that I've addressed it, it's over.

Let's get back on task. Do you have any commentary on the post about Representative Krusick, or do you just want to say "Republicans are big old poopy-heads" again?

"In 2006, Democratic Nebraska senator Ben Nelson received the endorsements of groups such as the National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association, respectively a pro-life group and pro-gun group, that both typically endorse Republicans."

Ben Nelson and for that matter, Joe Liberman. What were their votes on Porkulas (aka the one trillion dollar waste Obama pushed in 09), the seizure of GM and Chrysler, the takeover of the student loan industry and the granddaddy of them all, Obamacare. Oh, yea, all we're votes for. They are both steady votes for B Hussein Obama and Harry Reid. In other word, leftists Democrats.

An endorsement from NARAL, NOW and SEIU? An endorsement from radical groups like that would doom even a RINO like McCain or Huntsman. And why should even a Blue Blood Republican be judged according to the radical standards of the three groups you listed. Hell, list something a little more mainstream like the Communist Party USA.